Lawyers’ disbarment may be forever
3 state Supreme Court justices support making some attorneys’ ban permanent
In some states, losing a law license — or getting “disbarred” — is forever.
In Wisconsin, a disbarred lawyer can petition to have a revoked license reinstated after five years. And many do, even those who’ve been convicted of felonies.
At least three Supreme Court justices support removing that option in the most egregious cases.
“I believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should say what they mean and mean what they say,” wrote Chief Justice Annette Ziegler. “We should not be creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer seeking to practice law again.
“I believe there may be rare and unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an attorney’s license to practice law.”
Ziegler’s comments came in a short concurring opinion to the Supreme Court’s latest order of revocation, concerning Laura A. Schwefel, of Sussex. Justices Brian Hagedorn and Rebecca Bradley joined Ziegler’s opinion.
It’s not clear if the three justices would have supported permanent revocation for Schwefel, who voluntarily consented to revocation before her misconduct case even went to a hearing. The Office of Lawyer Regulation had prepared a six-count complaint against Schwefel, a 1995 graduate of University of Wisconsin Law School.
Her attorney, Peyton Engel, said she disputes some of the facts as laid out in the court’s ruling, “but for medical reasons chose not to litigate.” According to the decision: Schwefel befriended an elderly widow around 2007. After the woman had a stroke in 2009, Schwefel became her power of attorney for finances and health care. She opened a new joint bank account in both their names.
In 2010, Schwefel used $72,600 of the woman’s money to buy a Florida condo in Schwefel’s name. The woman had not authorized, and was unaware of, the purchase.
The woman did agree to let Schwefel handle the sale of the woman’s Mequon condo. It sold for $194,000 in 2010, but Schwefel deposited $176,828 into the joint account and told the woman the condo sold for $125,000.
Schwefel later opened another joint bank account unbeknownst to the woman, and transferred nearly all the money from the first account, $190,000, into it.
In 2012, Schwefel made herself the beneficiary of the woman’s two IRAs and an investment account. She loaned $100,000 of the woman’s money to another lawyer for that lawyer’s personal
real estate transaction. That lawyer then helped buy a condo in Florida for $110,000 that was titled in Schwefel’s and the woman’s name, with rights of survivorship.
The woman didn’t know she had paid for it and thought she was only contributing $20,000 toward Schwefel’s purchase of the condo for herself. Schwefel then spent thousands more of the woman’s money renovating the unit.
Around that time, the woman began feeling depressed over Schwefel’s increasing control of her life. After recovering from the stroke, she had lived with Schwefel off and on.
In 2014, Schwefel moved the woman into a memory care facility in Sussex, though the woman did not need that level of care and was never considered incompetent. Though the staff felt the woman was capable of independent decisions, they took direction about her care from Schwefel.
Later that year, Schwefel got the woman to quitclaim what she thought was just her small interest in the Florida condo to Schwefel for $20,000 — though she never got all the money.
By 2015, the woman had moved to Florida, without telling Schwefel.
In 2016, the woman got a new lawyer and formally revoked Schwefel’s powers of attorney. The new lawyer took Schwefel to court when she wouldn’t provide a full accounting of the woman’s finances, and the woman filed a complaint with the Office of Lawyer Regulation.
The OLR charged that during its investigation, Schwefel lied to investigators and to a judge during the civil suit. Though that civil suit settled for $60,000, Schwefel must pay an additional $75,000 in restitution. At the time of the settlement, the woman had been unaware that Schwefel had bought her own Florida condo with the woman’s money and billed over $1,700 in personal expenses to the woman’s credit card.
District Attorneys for both Ozaukee and Washington counties said they were never asked to consider possible criminal charges against Schwefel.
Ziegler has consistently supported the option of permanent revocation. She dissented from a 2019 Supreme Court decision denying a petition to allow permanent revocation.
“For me, the purpose of a permanent revocation is far more about protection of the public, including the public’s trust and confidence in the legal system, than it is about punishing the lawyer,” Ziegler wrote.
“While the court may conclude that continually denying (a petition for re-admission) may be a satisfactory safeguard, it would be more forthright to instead revoke that attorney from the practice of law and let the public know that to actually be the case.”
Justices Rebecca Bradley and Hagedorn also joined that dissent.